ATTAR SINGH Vs. SHRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to claim that he was owner in possession of the property in dispute and the appellant along with proforma respondents be restrained from interfering in his possession. His suit was decreed.

(2.) APPELLANT failed in appeal. Both the Courts below have opined that the property in dispute was purchased by respondent No. 1 vide a sale deed dated August 12, 1992. By taking note of statement made by DW3, i.e., the appellant himself and other evidence on record, Court below has held that the land appears to have been sold for legal necessity and the same was also justified, as the father of the appellant had sold a piece of land, which was as per his share, in the total holding of the family. Nothing has been shown to the contrary , which may necessitate any interference in pure findings of fact and no substantial question of law has been raised. Dismissed.